THIS WEEK:

It’s Not Real; It’s Puccini: People often suspend realism. In the movie “Spiderman” the hero swings through the canyons of Manhattan using threads of “spider silk” he attaches from building to building as he travels down the street. In Puccini’s La Boheme, the leading lady sings a beautiful aria on her death bed, in the last stages of consumption, tuberculous filling her lungs will bodily fluids. The realist may say that is not possible. The opera buff may respond it’s not real; it’s Puccini.

Human imagination is boundless.

Unfortunately, many scientists, commentators and politicians expect other physicists and commentators to suspend realism when examining climate science produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and other reports from similar organizations. Critical thinking is not welcome.

For example, 40 years of calculations from comprehensive satellite data show that the atmosphere is warming modestly, but not over the Antarctic. The calculations are verified using temperature measurements by different instruments in weather balloons, taken over a part of the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere. The temperature trends in the atmosphere include effects of all greenhouse gases, such as changes in carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor occurring from natural El Niño events.

The IPCC, etc. use surface temperatures, which are not comprehensive and include many other influences such as urbanization and change in land use. Surface temperature trends show a far greater warming rate than atmospheric trends. The IPCC, etc. claim that the primary cause of surface warming is carbon dioxide and that it is dangerous for humans. The advocates of dangerous warming have not produced a substantiated foundation, a tested hypothesis that demonstrates how a minor warming of the atmosphere causes a far greater warming of the surface. Further, the models they use predict a pronounced warming of the upper troposphere above the tropics, a “tropical hot spot.” Observations by balloons, and satellites show that it’s simply not there. It is as if the Climate Establishment is saying about their work: it’s not physics, it’s climate science!

********************

Will Happer – Realist: President Trump did the unthinkable for many. He appointed a distinguished physicist, William Happer, to a committee being formed to review the security risks to the nation from climate change. Readers may recall that TWTW has suggested that the threat assessments are dubious at best. They lack critical thinking. Fort Eustis, VA, on the James River, is listed as one of the military facilities most at risk from sea level rise caused by global warming. The tidal gages in the area show that sea levels are not rising by an unusual extent.

But, the entire area of Norfolk / Newport News, which is on the low coastal plane, is sinking. Land subsidence is occurring, primarily from ground water extraction from two major wells which are forming clear funnels that show subsiding land centered on these wells. One well is at West Point on the York River about 30 miles northeast of Fort Eustis. The other well is in Franklin, Virginia, about 50 miles southwest of Fort Eustis. A cost-effective alternative for water may be to replace these wells with one or two desalination plants similar to that employed in Carlsbad, CA, using prefiltration technology developed in Israel.

When the appointment of Happer was announced, the global warming chorus roared – how dare the president appoint a physicist who may question the threat assessments by experts. The noise may be reminiscent of the uproar the occurred when President Reagan dared question the assessments of the experts who considered that the Soviet economy was comparable to that of the US, including the first US Nobel laureate in economics. After the Soviet economy collapsed, the critics of Reagan forgot their previous economic assessments.

A sample of the response to Happer can be found in an editorial in Science Magazine written by a journalist for an environmental news service, E & E News.

“William Happer, a prominent opponent of climate science in the Trump administration, is heading a new White House effort to downplay the national security risks posed by climate change.”

“Happer, who is not a climate scientist, has rejected mainstream climate science for years. He routinely says that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that the world could burn more fossil fuels without harm. Happer heads a group called the CO2 Coalition, which advocates for a rejection of climate science, and he has said the world is in a ‘CO2 drought.’”

“’Frankly, it’s insulting to those in the intelligence community and those who are in our science agencies,’ [Francesco] Femia [co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security] said. ‘Within the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, there are a lot of people who are evidence-driven, fact-driven, science-driven patriots, and they see a risk and they begin to put that into their analysis because they know if you don’t do so, you’re going to have a blind spot on security. And that’s never a good thing.’”

Such comments prompt a response such as, “Why do these evidence-driven, fact-driven, science-driven patriots ignore atmospheric temperature trends, where the greenhouse gas effect occurs?” And “What is fact-based about claims of exponential sea level rise, increasing sea levels by an ever-increasing rate?”

But, perhaps the most pointed response came from physicist Luboš Motl in his blog, The Reference Frame, when addressing political comments by former mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Schumer:

“Can’t they see that Happer clearly knows more about these matters – especially the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (the greenhouse effect is an example) and the relative CO2 famine in the present – than they and their Senate clubs and aides combined? Bullying of a scientist by a politician is the right word here.”

This goes to the core. The enormous benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization are well-documented, substantiated by experiments and real-world observations, but ignored by the IPCC and the climate chorus. Worse, the IPCC, etc. have produced a distorted version of the absorption and reemission of electromagnetic radiation (the greenhouse effect). See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy, Changing Seas, and Other Scientific News.

********************

The Greenhouse Effect: this is the first in a series on the greenhouse effect as it is being measured in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases are nearly transparent to sunlight but partially opaque to thermal radiation from Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is a predicted warming of the surface and lower atmosphere and a cooling of the stratosphere and upper atmosphere as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, H2O. Carbon dioxide, CO2, is of lesser importance. Nitrous oxide, N2O, and methane, CH4, make only minor contributions to greenhouse warming. The most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen, N2, and oxygen, O2, are not greenhouse gases since they are nearly transparent to both sunlight and thermal radiation. There is no doubt that the greenhouse effect exists, but there is considerable uncertainty about how large it is.

Many economic models show that small warming of any kind will benefit the Earth, for example, by lengthening growing seasons and by lessening human mortality due to extreme cold. Separately, increasing concentrations of CO2 have enormously positive effects on the growth of crops and forests. Greening of the Earth from more CO2 is already being observed from satellites. It is important to resolve whether the greenhouse effect from credible increases in CO2 concentrations will be modest and beneficial or large and harmful. Theoretical uncertainties in science have traditionally been resolved by comparing theoretical predictions with observations. Comparing predicted and observed temperature changes of the surface and lower atmosphere is an incisive way to resolve theoretical uncertainties about the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.

Surface and lower-atmospheric temperatures are expected to warm in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. But surface temperatures, and their global averages, are influenced by other factors, like land-use changes, suburban and urban development. Surface temperatures are measured by thermometers here and there—sometimes in very bad locations—, and effort is made to interpolate between sites, often poorly. In contrast, satellites can measure atmospheric temperatures with nearly full sampling of the globe and with few of the systematic errors that plague surface measurements.

Instruments on satellites measure the intensity of microwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere. Temperatures are deduced from these intensities by methods analogous to those used in scanning temporal thermometers, available in most pharmacies. Atmospheric temperatures determined from satellite observations have been confirmed by direct measurements of temperature from weather balloons, many hundreds of which are launched every day.

Another reason to use atmospheric rather than surface temperatures as the touchstone for testing climate models is that climate models predict maximum warming at altitudes of 5 to 10 km in the tropical atmosphere. Lesser warmings are predicted for the surface, where it is harder to make reliable measurements.

Using atmospheric temperature data, John Christy et al. have repeatedly shown that the global climate models, in general, greatly overestimate the warming of the bulk atmosphere. Using 60 years of weather balloon data, Ross McKitrick and Christy have shown that an assumed pronounced warming centered over the tropics at about 30,000 to 35,000 feet (9 to 11 km, 300 to 200 millibars) is not found. The McKitrick and Christy study reinforces a 2007 study by Douglas, Christy, Pearson and Singer. This “hot spot” may be logically derived from a warming of the surface, whatever the cause. Its failure to appear after 60 years of observations is significant. There is something wrong with the theory. methodology, and/or procedure used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the models on which they rely.

TWTW addressed this lack of a pronounced warming in the context of the widely accepted Global Annual Energy Budget by Kiehl and Trenberth on January 26 and February 2. The vicinity of center of the graphic depicts the concepts at issue “Thermals and Evapotranspiration” at the surface absorbing heat then rising in the atmosphere then releasing latent heat in the atmosphere. Based on the evidence presented by McKitrick and Christy, these processes are not intensifying. Thus, assumptions that storms, floods, droughts, etc. are intensifying are not justified by observational evidence.

Using observed evidence, Christy et al. have shown that the divergence between climate models and actual nature is increasing. The divergence is likely to continue unless the theory and methodology used by the IPCC, et al., are changed substantially. This is the first of several TWTWs that will address our understanding of the actual greenhouse gas effect and why the efforts of the IPCC, et al. are faulty.

Although not comprehensive and not embodied in a coherent theory, significant observational data of the atmosphere are being collected. These data suggest the IPCC has significantly overestimated the total greenhouse gas effect, especially that of carbon dioxide. These data bring into question the right side of what is depicted in the Kiehl and Trenberth diagram, the outgoing surface radiation resulting in far less outgoing longwave radiation. Unfortunately, outgoing longwave radiation, which is in the infrared range, cannot be observed from the surface.

The 1979 Charney report assumed that the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide, which had been measured by laboratory experiments, would be greatly amplified by increased water vapor. Since there were no comprehensive measurements of outgoing longwave radiation, there was no hard evidence supporting or refuting this concept. Thus, the 1979 Charney report embodied speculation concerning the impact of greenhouse gases that may have been appropriate at that time; but, as with atmospheric temperature trends, this speculation has been superseded by observational data.

To better express the effects of greenhouse gases on outgoing infrared radiation, it is useful to think of placing thin layers of slightly smoky glass over a bright light shining through a window with each layer of glass being less smoky, clearer. As more layers are placed on, the total effect increases, but effect of the last layer is less noticeable than the previous one. In terminology that will follow in future TWTWs, if there is no interference with the light (electromagnetic energy) passing through the atmosphere (the window), it is said to be transparent. If there is considerable interference with the light (electromagnetic energy) passing through the atmosphere, it is said to be opaque. Different greenhouse gases interfere with different wavelengths of outbound infrared energy. At a particular wavelength, carbon dioxide may be transparent to infrared energy, yet at a different wavelength, opaque to infrared energy. The ability of greenhouse gases to absorb, then re-emit energy varies with the wavelength of the energy.

Since the advent of the satellite era, several countries have been compiling data on the atmosphere. For example, with what is called the A-Train of multiple satellites, and a similar, lower orbiting, C-Train, satellites from the US, France, and Japan collect a wide variety of data, including visible, infrared and microwave energy, phases of water, studies of vegetation, atmospheric pollutants, greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, water levels on land areas, snow depths, etc. The information is shared among international partners.

Future installments in TWTW will discussed how these data, and other data, are compiled and developed into databases that are available to the public and can be downloaded onto personal computers. Further discussions will include how these calculations based on observations contradict the findings of the IPCC, etc., and their models. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Measurement Issues – Atmosphere.

********************

Hurricanes and Climate Change: On her web site, Climate Etc., Judith Curry has posted two installments on a series about Hurricanes & Climate Change. The first is on detection, going back about 5,000 years. The second is on attribution which she states must be based on observations, not models. See links under Models v. Observations.

********************

Additions and Corrections: A reader on WUWT wrote that TWTW linked to the headline of comments on a paper changing ocean pH with changing wind patterns. The link created the impression that the paper contradicted recent lowering of pH claimed by many. Actually, the paper showed 159-year reconstruction of pH based on a set of coral collected in the northern South China Sea. TWTW should have made such a comment under the link.

********************

Number of the Week: Not €1.57 billion, but closer to €7 billion. An EU energy study claimed that annual levies on UK consumers in 2016 for subsidies to renewable electricity were €1.57 billion, whereas the correct figure is closer to €7 billion. It seems that subsidies for green energy are experiencing more exponential growth than increases in sea level. See link under Problems in the Orthodoxy.

“Critics of the effort to create the new panel, which was first reported by The Washington Post, pointed to the inclusion of Dr. Happer, a Princeton physicist who serves on the National Security Council as Mr. Trump’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies. Dr. Happer has gained notoriety in the scientific community for his statements that carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas that scientists say is trapping heat and warming the planet — is beneficial to humanity. The memo did not name other officials to be appointed to the panel.”

Trump’s pick to chair new climate panel once said CO2 has been maligned like “Jews under Hitler”

“Broecker said his studies suggested that the conveyor belt was the ‘Achilles heel of the climate system’ and a fragile phenomenon that could change rapidly for reasons not fully understood. It would take only a slight rise in temperature to keep water from sinking in the North Atlantic, he said, and that would bring the conveyor to a halt.

“In the 1970s, he worked as a consultant for Exxon and wrote several papers on the effects of carbon dioxide for the oil company.

“His 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, which predicted rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced heating of the planet. This built on earlier studies and helped to push the subject to a wider audience.”

“For years, Republicans have questioned humans’ contribution to climate change, casting doubt on the well-established scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil and other fossil fuels are causing the planet to warm dangerously.” [Boldface added.]

“Since 2008, when the Climate Change Act was passed, UK emissions of CO2 have fallen by 162 MTCO2. In that time, the rest of the World’s have increased by 3225 MTCO2.

“If that is not evidence that Lidington’s policy has not worked, I don’t know what is!

“He wants a national debate on how as a country we make the right choices. Please bring it on. But we cannot have one until the public are given the full facts, and not the myths that the government wishes to peddle.”

[SEPP Comment: The Climate Change Act came well before Paris Agreement, but it is part of the general claim that CO2 emissions must be reduced.]

“You would not teach in Physics 101 that you quote a measurement of a continuous variable to one part in a thousand when its error is a hundred parts in a thousand, as is the case for HadCrut4. The sensible way is to round the annual global temperature to 0.1 degree C. To rank years swimming about in statistical noise yet hype it as a big media story and a policy driver is nonsense.”

“I am preparing a new Special Report on Hurricanes and Climate Change.

“There has not been a timeline or synthesis of these results for the past five thousand years, either regionally or for the entire coastal region. However, it is clear from these analyses that significant variability of landfall probabilities occurs on century to millennial time scales. There appears to have been a broad ‘hyperactive period’ from 3400 to 1000 years B.P. High activity persisted in the Gulf of Mexico until 1400 AD, with a shift to more frequent severe hurricane strikes from the Bahamas to New England occurring between 1400 and 1675 AD. Since 1760, there was a gradual decline in activity until the 1990’s.”

“Models and theory suggest that hurricane intensity and rainfall should increase in a warming climate. There is no theory that predicts a change in the number of hurricanes or a change in hurricane tracks with warmer temperatures.

“Convincing attribution of any changes requires that a change in hurricane characteristics be identified from observations, with the change exceeding natural variability.”

Measurement Issues — Surface

Data mangling: BoM’s Changes to Darwin’s Climate History are Not Logical

“The incorporation of data from new sites may account for some of the 23 per cent increase,” Dr Marohasy said, “because the bureau have opened new sites in hotter western NSW, while closing higher-altitude weather stations, including Charlotte Pass in the Snowy Mountains.”

“This agreement is being ushered into existence by an obscure entity, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Its original mission was to help rebuild Europe following World War 2. Decades later, it helped former East Bloc countries recover from Communism.”

“When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: ‘Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?’”

“Our general economy and industrial civilization is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics – and even with the survival of diverse wildlife etc. On the other hand, the dogmatic “green” economy is not compatible with the preservation of the wealthy human civilization as we know it today.”

“We have heard nonsensical claims like this before from politicians. Remember when Ed Miliband claimed his green revolution would create 400,000 jobs? That was back in 2009. I wonder what happened to them.

“Of course, Labour’s policies will probably create many more unemployed workers. But I don’t think a skilled worker at a factory on Merseyside will be particularly happy having to move hundreds of miles in order to take up a new job as a double glazing salesman!”

“The resignation of Dr. Kim, for some, could not have come at a more opportune time. The World Bank and its counterparts such as the Asian Development Bank have taken a lead role in denying poorer countries the development strategy that the now-rich countries had taken so successfully since the Industrial Revolution.”

[SEPP Comment: Was the World Bank following a pattern set with the banning of DDT. Once the US and Western Europe solved the problem of malaria, in part by using DDT, ban the use of the chemical in other countries, with dire results?]

“Beyond ruling on this case, however, Diamond went further to rebuke U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate. When Aiken ordered that lawsuit to trial in 2016, she said ‘the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,’ becoming the first U.S. judge to recognize that right.

“Diamond said that ruling is at odds with previous court decisions and ‘the Juliana Court certainly contravened or ignored longstanding authority.’

“He also took issue with what guaranteeing a stable climate would entail, calling it ‘without apparent limit.’”

Legal Experts Accuse New York Climate Crusaders of Overstepping the Law

“The IEA WEO 2018 supports a worldwide energy transition and forecasts capacity additions in power generation, by type, by 2020.

“Using data from the IEA chart, the above calculations demonstrate that electricity from coal-fired and NGCC power plants is far cheaper, four times less expensive when comparing NGCC power plants with PV Solar plants, than renewables.

“There is no need to delve into levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and all the minutia associated with LCOE calculations. The cost and output of units being installed worldwide establishes, unequivocally, that wind and PV Solar are more expensive.”

“Germany, the largest gas market in Europe and biggest buyer of Russian gas as well as the strongest supporter of Nord Stream, said it will build two LNG terminals as part of efforts to diversify its sources of the fuel as it phases out coal and nuclear power plants under pressure from the green lobby.”

[Dutch] Government admits it was wrong on energy bill hikes, used outdated figures

“As part of its required annual reporting of emissions, the EPA said carbon dioxide output grew 0.6 percent in 2018 over the previous year, to 1.93 billion tons, while electricity generated grew 5 percent, to 23.4 quadrillion British thermal units.”

[SEPP Comment: Obviously with enough water to fill 27 million Olympic-sized pools, California’s drought problems have been solved forever? Rather than reporting gallons, why didn’t the paper use raindrops – a much more impressive number?]

Does California owe the federal government billions from its canceled rail project?

“One key point: The agreement does not require the California High-Speed Rail Authority to build trains for the track.

“So, if California decided simply to build out this segment of the high-speed rail track, under the agreements no money would be owed back to the federal government; even if no trains were built for the track.”

Health, Energy, and Climate

Harvard Public Health Paper Threatens Africans Health with a Carbon Dioxide Scare Story

From the abstract: Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions. We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production.

“There was some modest activity yesterday in the Mann vs Steyn climate-change hockey-stick case, which will shortly be entering its eighth year. As that ludicrous fact testifies, it has been procedurally bollocksed by the District of Columbia courts, which is why it will almost certainly be headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, it will be the most consequential free-speech case since New York Times vs Sullivan fifty-five years ago.”

[SEPP Comment: The New York Times-vs-Sullivan decision established an actual malice standard which requires that a plaintiff [person making the complaint of wrongdoing], who is a public official or public figure, and who alleges defamation, must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.]

Environmental Industry

Mueller’s ‘Foreign Agent’ Prosecutions May Lead to Probes of Green Groups

[SEPP Comment: Based on studies of the highly saline Lake Van, the largest lake in Turkey and one of the world’s largest endorheic lakes (having no outlet), with the outlet blocked by successive lava flows. The lake water is strongly alkaline (pH 9.7).

“In the case of the 1976 Swine Flu episode, President Ford, acting on the advice from the country’s best medical advisors, authorized dramatic action — aggressive intervention, in the form of a national immunization campaign — which turned out badly. Many of the advisors that had originally convinced President Ford to act almost immediately had second thoughts, long before the adverse effects started to turn up. Historians have been critical of Ford but the blame stems from the difficulty of decision making under deep uncertainty.”

“Scientists will this week warn that Italy may be forced to import the basic ingredients for pasta, its national food, because climate change will make it impossible to grow durum wheat.

“In a report to be released by Britain’s Met Office today, scientists predict that Italy’s durum yields will start to decline from 2020 and the crop will almost disappear from the country later this century.

“Mr. Blohm is an elected member of the Operating Committee and the Standards Committee of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., the continental bulk electric system’s reliability regulator designated by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 and by all the Canadian provinces’ energy regulators.”

In expressing a critical concern Mr Blohm writes:

“The Democrats’ Green New Deal calls for a fully renewable electric power grid. Regardless of the economic or political challenges of bringing this about, it is likely technologically impossible.

“An electric power grid involves second-by-second balancing between generated supply and consumer demand. In the case of a sudden imbalance—such as from the loss of a generator’s output—all the remaining generators on the grid instantaneously pool together. Each one pitches in a small part of the required power to make up for the lost generator fast enough to keep supply and demand balanced.

“This doesn’t work for wind and solar because you can’t spontaneously increase wind or sunshine. Hydro power is limited and unevenly distributed around the country. And for safety reasons, nuclear power—even if the Green New Dealers accepted it—can’t be cranked up to neutralize imbalances. Nor can consumer demand be suddenly reduced enough.

“Fossil-fuel turbines, by contrast, very naturally compensate for sudden supply outages. The inertia of the spinning mass of rotors provides the extra energy needed to compensate for the loss for the first few seconds. (Wind-rotor inertia is too short-lived.) Meanwhile the generators’ on-line reserve capacity kicks in, giving a rapid boost in power output to prevent the turbines from slowing down. That substitute power, called “governor response,” lasts as long as 15 minutes. During that time a single replacement generator ramps up to compensate entirely for the loss. All the turbines on the grid are thereby restored to their original speed, and the governor response is rearmed for the next disturbance.

An all-renewables grid would require prohibitively expensive battery storage to compensate for sudden power losses. Even with batteries, the lost power would have to be fed through “inverters”—a technology that converts variable-wind-speed alternating current, solar-power direct current, and battery-power direct-current into alternating current—to allow for synthetic inertia and governor response in the case of a disruption.

“But according to a 2017 report from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, if a large enough share of the power grid flows through inverters, the grid itself may collapse. Existing inverter technologies have faced serious software problems and prompted outages where they have been deployed. The IEEE is trying to create a global standard for inverter design—though heavy input by Chinese suppliers bent on commandeering the technology may pose a national-security risk if the U.S. were to incorporate the standard.

“How could the market price in the cost of providing rapid replacement energy that renewable sources can’t provide reliably? The entity that caused the outage should need to pay. Yet the power industry—to say nothing of the Green New Dealers—hasn’t given this much thought. An all-renewables power grid is destined to collapse.”

17 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #349”

Describing the greenhouse effect in laymans terms allows access to it by genuinely inquiring, but not scientifically educated, minds.

Most people are not scientifically educated (around 90%?) including politicians, which is why the hysterical rhetoric on climate change has been so successful. It is simple and emotive.

Providing patient and accessible explanations like this is the only way the tide can be turned into one of reasoned debate.

If every scientist in the world accepted that climate change is not a threat to humanity, they would still only have 10% of the the democratic vote on the subject and could not make a difference to the claims of the MSM and politicians.

But by explaining things to the rest of the voters, in terms voters understand, a large proportion of the 90% would turn against politicians and influence the MSM.

And isn’t that, after all, a scientists job? To do the hard work, then deliver solutions in terms people understand? Most people don’t understand how an aeroplane flies, but they accept it works because the results of herculean scientific effort is distilled down to getting from A to B as efficiently as possible. But explain ‘lift’ using an elastic band and they instantly ‘get it’.

I have been fiddling around with a layman’s guide to climate change but it’s tough when a layman like me has to decipher complicated scientific theory and deliver it in a simple, memorable manner.

Wouldn’t be bad if scientist wouldt follow the scientific way and accept, that it’s the norm in scientific research to have different views, explanations, interpretations etc.

I find it always fascinating or bold that certain climate researchers see themselves as scientists but do not act according to scientific principles, i.a. by assuming that they are the sole owners of the truth, that they consider themselves flawless and believe that anyone who says otherwise is a denier, unscientific, unclean, have not read this or that or misunderstood it, tells nonsenses. There are not much scientists who trample the freedom of research and science under foot in the way that some climate researchers do.

Right, but not right enough 😀
What M.Mann f.e. will explain to the public in terms they understand ? Or a certain Rahmstorf ?
Just the last explains a lot but only onesided. The second part of my comment above was in origin just about Rahmstorf I posted earlier on Nir Shavivs blog.

I should have been clearer. I’m not interested in what the alarmists say other than they deliver the climate change message in political terms, which is invariably simple.

I’m more concerned that sceptical scientists begin to deliver short, memorable, quotable sound bites about the climate that are simple and truthful.

e.g. a) No one has ever demonstrated empirically that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm. b) The only significant, empirical evidence of CO2’s effect on the planet is that it’s greened by 14% in the last 35 years or so.

“’Frankly, it’s insulting to those in the intelligence community and those who are in our science agencies,’ [Francesco] Femia [co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security] said. ‘Within the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, there are a lot of people who are evidence-driven, fact-driven, science-driven patriots, and they see a risk and they begin to put that into their analysis because they know if you don’t do so, you’re going to have a blind spot on security. And that’s never a good thing.’”

Mr. Femia “holds a master’s degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), where he focused on European foreign policy, security and defense issues, and serves on the Advisory Board of the Nuclear Security Working Group.” I doubt very much that this background gives him any grounds to judge the qualifications of Dr. Happer.

Having worked as an electric power Systems Engineer, I loved the article on renewables being unable to balance demand. I assume the alarmists’ response would be “You don’t really need that airconditioning right now Granny, we’ll just remotely turn it off.”

Utilities that rely on Load Shedding in their Resource Plans reflect socialism, not capitalism.

Wikipedia, referring to the Washington Post, argues that Professor Happer has no special training in climate science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer The question is what “climate science” is. Climate is influenced by variations in solar activity, which study astrophysics, changes in ocean currents, which are studied by oceanographers, and other factors that require special study. Is there a scientific basis for taking into account all these factors? A rhetorical question.
If we consider the theory of the greenhouse effect as such a base, then for a physicist and a specialist in the field of spectroscopy, such as Prof. Happer, it is obvious that the ability of the “greenhouse gas” to absorb infrared radiation does not prove its ability to absorb additional heat. In other words, Prof. Happer rejects the theory of the greenhouse effect as physically incorrect, and that is what annoys his opponents.

aleks, your “…Prof. Happer rejects the theory of the greenhouse effect as physically incorrect …” appears, on the surface, to be incorrect. If you are arguing that heat is a different phenomenon, maybe OK.

P.S. Dr. Happer seems to argue it is the ‘application’ of GH theory that is incorrect. It appears Dr. Happer recognizes there has been no observed tropical atmospheric hot spot, essentially invalidating mainstream climate alarmism.

Whilst I am fortunate in having a family doctor who is always happy to explain in none scientific terms just what is wrong with me, fortunately very little, many Doctors are similar to the one who said to my wife, a very intelligent women, that he could best get on with this consultation if she stopped asking questions. Of course she never went back to him.

But its not that far back that Doctors considered themselves to be almost a GOD, and preferred to use Latin rather than the language, in our case English.

Its the old “Don’t question your betters” like the time before say the 1900
period. They like being in their minds “Your Betters”.

Science can be explained in simple terms, so we should demand that they do. After all its our money which keeps them in a comfortable life style.

For example take the worlds climate. Energy from the Sun, i.e. photons hits the Earth and gives up that energy, mostly via the trace gas CO2, which re-radiates it. Then the vast Oceans both via currants and evaporation moves that heat energy around the planet. Result is weather. Remember that climate is a 30 year average.

Dave, yes while my explanation about what drives weather come the 30 year average which is or perhaps was called Climate. So could you explain to me what is wrong with my simplified explanation.

I think that their are far too many complicated and eye glazing things written about the perceived problem of so called “Climate Change”.

Do you agree that at the root of it all is the question of just what are the properties of the molecule CO2.

The Green blob insist that its the problem, because according to them it CO2 retains the hat, thus the more of it the hotter things will get. But those who do study it closely see that it upon absorbing a photon from the Sun, it first vibrates, then it re-radiates it at a different frequency.

Thus the properties of CO2 is the root of this myth. or as you appear to view it, the problem of “Climate Change.

So please you tell me and others what do you think are the properties of CO2. And remember its also a fertiliser, the world is getting Greener.

Dave, that may well be so, but you have not really answered my query. What is there about the molecule CO2, you know the two parts of Oxygen and the one part of Carbon that causes so much concern to the Green Lobby.

Is it their belief that this tiny trace gas actually retains the heat energy which it picks up from whatever source, thus the more of the parts per million of this trace gas then the greater the danger to the Planet Earth, and is this your belief ?

If so as we know from the recorded fact that from 1880, which was the final end of the hundreds of years of the little Ice Age, right up to about 1998, when the tiny .8 C increase was measured., and that this increase stopped.

Wads this the point when the Green Lobby despairing about Mother Nature not doing what all the Crystal Ball Computer s said that it should be doing , decided to change from calling it Global Warming to the cover everything saying of “Climate e Change”

Now this was truly a very clever move, as of course it covers everything. Let there be a flood, or an drought, or its too cold to its now too hot. Or some porn little creature seems s to be suffering, or some group of people are fed up with the part of the world that they live in and decide to move. Its all covered by the catch all of “Climate Change””.

And this whole odd situation appear s to be based on the properties of the gas CO2, what a truly wonderful molecule it appears to be, while just a parts per million tiny trace gas it seems to have incredible power over everything.

Please excuse the attempt at humour Dave , but it rely is quite funny. But seriously just what is there about CO2 which so worries the Green Lobby, or is it perhaps a big smokescreen to attempt to destroy the West’s economy, then to offer the struggling once well off West , the alternative of Communism Mark two, the one that they are sure will finally work.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy